I presume you can define the goalpost’s velocity with high precision, given your vagueness about its position.
UltraVires, you can book mark this post. I predict that it is an almost certainty that some time within the next 2-years, most likely within the next year, someone will bring a test case for Obergefell and I think there is better than even odds that that it will be heard.
I don’t think that they have the votes right now to overturn it, but I’m certainly not willing to call it a sure thing. I also didn’t think that they would outright overturn Roe.
There hasn’t been a concerted effort to overturn Obergefell because up until the last few months, stare decisis was a thing, as were unenumerated rights. So there really hasn’t been a whole lot of opportunity. Further following that decision immediately came the general election campaign, during which Republicans do their best to thread the needle between energizing their base and trying to appear harmless. Once the general election is over the concern is going to go back to throwing the base red meat to keep the checks coming and survive the next primary.
With these recent court wins the right is feeling flush with power, even more so if they win back the house. They are going to demand action. Any Republican who hesitates to rush forward with a agenda to completely reshape the nation into a far right mold is going to be branded a RINO and lose all support. Reversing same sex marriage is going to be high on that list.
What anti-LGBT laws have been passed since Dobbs?
I assume this is mostly at the state level but it shows the will to go there and it is only a matter of time until something makes it to the US Supreme Court. You can see there is no shortage of effort on this front:
Also…
Look at the status of the various bills:
Dead
Died in Committee
Failed to Pass
etc.
for the vast, overwhelming majority.
But they are trying. Diligently. Repeatedly.
They keep throwing crap at the wall until something sticks. Once they get favorable courts, as they have now, more crap sticks.
But as you can tell from the sheer numbers, they’re unlikely to succeed.
Such egregious laws would have to pass out of committee, be heard by both houses, passed by a majority, signed by the governor or president, survive innumerable court challenges, be granted cert, and be upheld by five members of the SCOTUS. The chances all of those things happening together are miniscule, to say the least.
No, because what you claim is the only possible valid evidence is not in fact the only valid evidence. It’s relevant that (1) the Republicans stood against Obergefell, (2) that they are continuing to try and move us backwards on LGBT rights and acceptance (3) that they have already used some arcane decision from long ago to override current precedent (4) and were clearly voting based on their own personal beliefs, not any legal principle.
It’s not just that I don’t trust Republicans. It’s that I don’t trust them on LGBT issues when they’re already showing that to be the people they are going to scape goat. It’s that they’ve already shown themselves to be untrustworthy with motivating reasoning.
And this isn’t just a discussion. If you win the argument, then that means we don’t have to worry about SSM falling, and we can spent our time on other things. This is a political thread. Any mind you change will change how we react politically.
And we’re not going to let our guard down, no matter how much you make it sound like doing so would be safe.
And he keeps repeating that Republicans lie to their own voters (those little old ladies) to keep the cash rolling in like that’s supposed to reassure us somehow that they can be trusted to do the opposite of what they say they will do. Admitting that your side lies to make them seem trustworthy is an odd take.
And, again, are completely unrelated to the SSM or contraception issue. All of these bills are about what rights or privileges persons who identify differently than their biological sex will enjoy and in most cases have to do with parental rights over minor children wanting to transition.
How any of those things support anti-miscegenation laws returning is beyond me, nor does it speak to how the current Supreme Court would overturn decisions like Obergefell.
I said that every politician ever lies/omits facts to their own voters. I think I was pretty plain about that and it is indisputably true. To get elected, a politician needs to be both: 1) neutral enough to win over moderates and independents, 2) yet hard core enough to keep the far right/far left from saying “Hey, this guy is not a real Republican/Democrat, we need a third party candidate.” Plus those hard cores are typically the ones that write checks.
So if you are shaking hands at a festival somewhere and a supporter asks you what you are going to do about they gays getting married, you say “I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.” The person who hears it is satisfied and the politician has not lied but what is unstated is that he has no interest in relitigating the case. His main concern is tax reform or gun rights or education funding. He will in no way be be waging a pitched battle against Obergefell.
But for some reasons, posters here think that he should, in order not to be called a hypocrite (but he still would anyways) he must abandon all politics and get into a meaningless argument with a potential supporter.
I am not saying that our side is trustworthy because we lie. I’m saying that instead of soundbites or party platforms, one should look at legislation that is actually in the pipeline. And none of them involve banning SSM as the cites here have to do with an entirely different issue.
This bills are all about the government controlling human bodies. Anti-abortion laws control pregnant women. Anti-trans laws control what people can and can’t do with their bodies. Anti-homosexual sex laws control what people can and can’t do with their bodies.
You don’t seem to see the connection. I sure see it.
It’s appallingly hypocritical that the party of “small government” and “let’s get rid of government interference/regulation” wants so very badly to control the bodies of people.
I’m really trying to understand. Your definition of “controlling human bodies” seems overly broad. In some sense, every law controls what I can do with my body. Respectfully, I think you need to have a narrower definition of this lest a support of seat belt or helmet laws must then logically mean that sodomy is prohibited. Of course it doesn’t.
And the links about “anti-trans laws” do not speak of what you are referring to. I know of no law or proposal that says adults cannot have gender reassignment surgery. These laws deal with minors who are almost universally controlled by what they can do by their parents’ permission.
In any event, it is illogical to say that because a person has doubts about whether a 10 year old should be able to have gender reassignment surgery without parental permission that he automatically would work hard to reverse Obergefell takes several leaps of logic. A person could easily have different positions on each issue because they are only related in the most tenuous sense, and that is being charitable.
Maybe it hasn’t occurred to you that people really do have different outlooks on these matter?
I don’t think the government has any business regulating what goes on between consenting adults provided no outright harm is being done. On that basis I don’t think the government - or anyone else - should be dictating sexual practices or contraception to people. Don’t approve of homosexuality? Then don’t engage in homosexual acts. Don’t approve of birth control? Then don’t use it. But don’t say other people can’t do these things.
The problem is when these laws prohibit medical and psychological treatment for minors even when their parents consent. That is definitely government interference. Especially when this is being done in a setting involving multiple years of psychological counseling and medical oversight. It’s “think of the children!” taken to harmful levels, with a side order of distortion and lies.
First of all, I know of NO reputable medical facility treating gender issues that are performing “surgery” on minors. The ONLY time surgery would be considered is in the case intersex kids and even that is becoming less common. For trans kids that are not intersex the treatment is psychological counseling and, at a certain point, puberty blockers which cause no permanent changes and are given under medical supervison and monitoring. Surgery is only done when the child is old enough to be able to give actual informed consent, at which point we call the person an “adult” and not a child.
Are there skeevy places that break the rules? Sure. There always are. Does the fact there are underground plastic surgery operations that leave people maimed and dead mean legitimate plastic and reconstructive surgeons aren’t real? Of course not. Go after the people practicing medicine without a license or in improper conditions but don’t throw out a legitimate medical practice.
No one is performing gender reassignment SURGERY on “10 year old”. Can we stop spreading these lies? A 10 year old gets counseling and maybe puberty blockers, NOT surgery. Holy crap, it’s like whack-a-mole with this anti-fact.
But IF there is a 10 year old with an intersex condition that warrants surgery involving the genitals that should be decided between the parents and doctors and possibly some input from the 10 year old if they’re sufficiently mentally mature - NOT the government!
Back to abortion - some of the current laws on the books and now being enforced were written by politicians who know jack and shit about gynecology and obstetrics. An egregious example is Ohio House Bill 413 on page 184 states that unless doctors attempt to “reimplant” the embryo in an ectopic pregnancy into the uterus they can face murder charges. Medical technology is completely incapable of such a feat. The procedure doesn’t exist. At all. Yet politicians seem to think we’re living in a science fiction universe or they can just order up a medical breakthrough at will. So doctors who operate to save a mother’s life will face murder charges because they not able to do something that is not possible.
Even when a politician IS a doctor - like Mehmet Oz - that doesn’t mean he has any expertise in this particular area of medicine. I wouldn’t go to a gynecologist to deal with heart disease, why would I go to cardiac surgeon like Oz for a gynecological problem? Then Oz dropped the turd into a debate that a woman’s pregnancy should be decided by a woman, her doctor, and local politicians. WTF? Who are these “local politicians” and why should they be involved in ANYONE’s medical decisions?
Another problem is that a fair number of the laws now re-activated were written in a prior century, and by that I mean the 19th and not the 20th when so much less was known and so much less was even possible. Procedures now considered safe and routine - such as performing a Cesarean delivery on a still living woman - would have been considered murder or, if the woman survived, attempted murder back then. Should we therefore be imprisoning doctors for Cesarean deliveries now? But hey, at least the 19th Century law makers have the excuse of ignorance and lack of medical ability to do anything as a defense. Those of today have NO such excuse.
What of situations when a pregnant woman is diagnosed with cancer? Most cancer treatments will do terrible things to a developing baby, or kill the baby outright - should women be forced to wait, with growing cancer, until AFTER they deliver the baby? Nevermind that cancer isn’t good for the baby, either, and mom may be doomed to an early death by the delay. Shouldn’t that sort of decision be made by the people actually involved/impacted and NOT by politicians who don’t even know these people, and never will? Too many laws are being written with the idea that these situations are black and white but in reality there are a lot of grey areas.
The decline and fall of conservatism, in two quotes:
You really should have just stopped here, UV. SenorBeef did make an excellent point.
The fight for SSM was recent, and it was ugly, and your own personal belief that Republicans will not take this fight up again as soon as the opportunity presents itself is unpersuasive in the face of all the available evidence. You’re free to feel that way but I honestly don’t see how you expect anyone to be convinced.
The Florida law that is already impacting LGBT teens and their teachers has inspired Republicans to push for a national bill along the same lines.
It’s a successful strategy for the GOP: make up a threat, then propose a bill to crack down on that “threat” which will in practice hurt the people they want to hurt while allowing them to accuse all opponents of that bill of supporting that threat.
It’s just such a funny premise to begin with. It’s not even amenable to a reasoned response. Sure, one of the justices in the current, extremely right wing and extremely politicized Supreme Court just recently wrote down in his opinion “these cases are trash and we should get rid of them also.” Sure, it’s an extremely well known fact that the Court was very recently stacked with Heritage Foundation devotees, and that the Heritage Foundation is loading up the dockets with cases devoted to its pet causes, and that this led to Roe being summarily trashed in very short order. Sure, gay marriage is one of their causes, why do you ask. Sure, one of the Supreme Court justices vowed revenge on Democrats before he even heard a case.
And yeah, OK, sure the same Heritage foundation has been writing since Obergefell was decided that same sex marriage and abortion are issues that need to be attacked the same way:
First, we must call the court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges what it is: judicial activism. Just as the pro-life movement successfully rejected Roe v. Wade and exposed its lies about unborn life and about the Constitution, we must make it clear to our fellow citizens that Obergefell v. Hodges does not tell the truth about marriage or about our Constitution.
And yes, we all can agree that the same justices who were roundly criticized for saying Roe was entitled to stare decisis during their confirmation hearings also gave the same answers about Obergefell, and that this is part of an intentional strategy:
And yes, of course it is still the case that in between 25 and 32 states, gay marriage would be immediately banned if the Obergefell rule was lifted, via the exact same mechanism and in many of the same places that abortion bans immediately went into effect when Roe was overturned.
But like, other than that, what evidence even is there that these people who have always been against a thing that only happened 7 years ago, and have the power to get rid of it, would do that?
I don’t know what your cites prove. Sure the Heritage Foundation disagreed with Obergefell and so did four dissenting justices. The positions on the case have been done to death on this board and need not be rehashed. The question is not was it correct as an original matter, but should it be overruled. And I am seeing no serious motion in that direction.
As for your second cite, it simply remarks that every SCOTUS nominee has both said that any case is “settled” while at the same time refusing to give an opinion on whether they would vote to overrule it. I think in recent years, nominees will say that they support Marbury v. Madison and Brown, while hating Plessy and Dred Scott. But other than those extremely non-controversial cases, they will not give a preview about anything else at all. You cannot take anything away from that that only conservatives are being cagey.
But don’t think they’re being cagey on overturning the, just, 5/4, so it’s not even a good precedent, Obergefell decision!